> > while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been > > quite like any other working group. in my experience IESG has felt > > considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some > > reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic. > > And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset > of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is > in fact process issues.
yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom, dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications. at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP. again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient. Keith
